United States v. Gordon – Eleventh Circuit Clarifies the “Reasonable-Efforts” Standard for Vehicle Impoundment and Inventory Searches

Introduction

In United States v. Willie Gordon, Nos. 24-13035 & 24-13062 (11th Cir. July 29, 2025) (non-published), the Eleventh Circuit confronted a familiar but still contentious Fourth-Amendment scenario: whether a warrantless “inventory search” of a vehicle—initiated after a routine traffic stop—was constitutionally valid. Defendant-Appellant Willie Frank Gordon sought reversal of his federal convictions and related supervised-release revocation on the theory that Escambia County sheriff’s deputies violated the Fourth Amendment by (a) improperly impounding the car he was driving and (b) conducting an inventory search that was allegedly pretextual.

The case required the court to apply well-established Supreme Court precedents (Opperman, Bertine, Wells) and prior circuit authority to a modern set of facts—one involving an incarcerated vehicle owner and a high-crime parking lot. The panel’s per curiam opinion both re-affirms existing law and establishes a clarifying rule: when officers learn the registered owner of a vehicle is incarcerated and the surrounding circumstances pose a realistic risk of theft or liability, officers satisfy the “reasonable-efforts” requirement for impoundment—even if a non-owner volunteer is willing to take the vehicle and less intrusive alternatives are theoretically available.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Motion to Suppress Denied. The district court correctly found that (i) the deputies had lawful authority to impound the vehicle under Escambia County Sheriff’s Office (ECSO) policy and (ii) the ensuing inventory search complied with “standardized criteria.”

2. Convictions Affirmed. Because the evidence (large quantities of methamphetamine and cocaine, a firearm, ammunition, and Gordon’s statements) was lawfully obtained, Gordon’s jury convictions for drug trafficking, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and felon-in-possession were upheld.

3. Supervised-Release Revocation Affirmed. Gordon’s only challenge to the revocation sentence depended on vacating his underlying convictions; the panel therefore affirmed the consecutive 24-month term.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) – Recognised the inventory search exception for lawfully impounded vehicles.
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) – Held that officers may exercise discretion to impound so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion.
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) – Emphasised that an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging.
United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948 (11th Cir. 1990) – Limited the scope of inventories to what is necessary to accomplish protective goals.
United States v. Williams, 936 F.2d 1243 (11th Cir. 1991) – Adopted a two-stage test: authority to impound and adherence to policy.
Sammons v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1992) – Framed the critical question as whether decisions were within the realm of reason.
United States v. Staller, 616 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1980)
United States v. O’Bryant, 775 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1985)
United States v. Roberson, 897 F.2d 1092 (11th Cir. 1990)

Each of these authorities fed directly into the panel’s reasoning: the Supreme Court cases supply the doctrinal framework, while the Eleventh Circuit precedents flesh out how that framework applies in practice (e.g., risk of vandalism, sufficiency of inventory forms).

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Lawful Authority to Impound.
- Gordon was validly arrested for driving without a license.
- The ECSO policy expressly authorises removal when the driver is in custody and the owner cannot be reached. Gordon told deputies that owner Justin Whitney was in jail.
- Risk factors: The vehicle was parked in a shopping-centre lot described as a high-crime area, creating an “appreciable risk of vandalism or theft” (Staller).
- Under Bertine, the deputies were not obliged to exhaust “less intrusive” alternatives such as releasing the car to a third party (McGee) or awaiting eventual owner pickup.
Compliance with Standardised Inventory Procedures.
- Deputies filled out a “Vehicle Impound and Inventory Receipt” and an incident report.
- The policy did not dictate how detailed the listing must be; minor deficiencies therefore do not invalidate the search (O’Bryant).
- Calling the tow truck after commencing the inventory was consistent with practice and not a departure from policy.
Rejecting the Pretext Argument.
- The presence of multiple officers and a hope of finding contraband does not vitiate an otherwise valid search (Roberson).
- No evidence showed a deviation from policy solely to hunt for incriminating evidence (Wells).

3. Impact of the Decision

The opinion is unpublished, yet it carries practical weight in the Eleventh Circuit:

Clarification of “Reasonable Efforts.” The court signals that when a vehicle’s owner is incarcerated, the agency’s obligation to seek alternatives is satisfied by verifying that fact and determining a legitimate safety/liability rationale for towing.
Third-Party Retrieval. Officers need not release a vehicle to a volunteer non-owner if policy discourages it or creates agency liability.
Risk-of-Vandalism Factor. Re-affirms that a high-crime environment weighs heavily in the reasonableness calculus, even where a car is legally parked.
Litigation Guidance. Defense counsel challenging inventory searches must focus on demonstrable deviations from written policy; mere existence of other options will not suffice.
Law-Enforcement Training. Agencies may update training materials to emphasise documenting (1) the inability of the owner to retrieve the vehicle and (2) surrounding risk factors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Inventory Search: A limited, administrative search of an impounded vehicle to log and safeguard property, reduce liability, and protect officers; distinct from a search for evidence.
Standardised Criteria: Written or well-established departmental rules directing when and how inventory searches occur. They prevent arbitrary or pretextual searches.
Pretext: An improper underlying motive by law enforcement (e.g., searching for evidence) masked by a legitimate-looking action. Under Wells, pretext invalidates an inventory search.
Reasonable-Efforts Requirement: Many agency policies (like ECSO’s) instruct officers to attempt alternative dispositions— contacting the owner or arranging a third-party pick-up—before towing. The court’s decision clarifies what counts as reasonable in practice.
Supervised-Release Revocation: A sentencing mechanism whereby a court may impose additional imprisonment when a defendant violates conditions of post-release supervision.

Conclusion

United States v. Gordon is notable less for creating a revolutionary doctrine than for providing refined guidance on everyday police practices that often determine the outcome of drug-and-gun prosecutions. The Eleventh Circuit underscored that:

Fourth-Amendment analysis of inventory searches hinges first on lawful impoundment and second on faithful adherence to departmental policy.
When the registered owner is incarcerated and the vehicle faces risk of theft or damage, officers fulfill the “reasonable-efforts” obligation—even if an unverified, non-owner volunteer offers to retrieve the car.
Minor paperwork imperfections do not taint a procedurally sound inventory search.

Going forward, this decision will aid prosecutors defending inventory searches and prompt defense practitioners to concentrate on tangible departures from policy rather than hypothesised less-intrusive alternatives. In the broader Fourth-Amendment landscape, Gordon re-affirms the delicate balance between individual privacy rights and practical necessities of law-enforcement administration.